Apple shuts down Think Secret

Remember how back in 2005 Apple sued Think Secret, one of the most infamous Apple rumor sites on the block? Apparently TS's publisher Nick Ciarelli (aka Nick DePlume) settled and even managed to keep his inside sources hidden (and the man has many), but paid the ultimate price: he's agreed to shut down the site, presumably for good -- at least in its current incarnation. We've got an email out to their crew to verify because something doesn't seem quite right here, kind of almost feels like a put-on. But who knows, maybe Apple managed to take out one of its most hated sites. Too bad that site also happens to be one of Apple fans' most beloved.

[Thanks, Joe]

Update: It's real alright. Nick just wrote back: "I'll just say that I'm very satisfied with the settlement, and that I'd like to thank the Electronic Frontier Foundation and my attorney, Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky, for their support."

[Fesh @ Dec 20th 2007 1:13AM]

yet another example of why the used fruit is not worthy of respect, much less the adoration piled upon it. the new osx is buggy as hell, even moreso than vista from many accounts, and ipods\iphones are under-featured compared to the real entries into those markets.

[AKBlade13 @ Dec 20th 2007 1:26AM]

LOL.

No, OSX is FAR better off than Vista on many counts and what do you think about MS, do you think they don't pull off stuff like this also?

The only camp that can be cosidered "holy" is the Linux crowd and that's because they're free.

Now back to the story, I think he'll be able to rebuild another site even though that's bad on Apple's side, unless he also has agreed to not work on any more sites dedicated to Apple in which case that really sucks.

AKBlade13

[ethana2 @ Dec 20th 2007 2:21AM]

I'm an Ubuntu user myself, but my OpenSolaris and BSD brethren and others who happen to use different kernels under their Xserver...
..excluding BSD/mach darwin for the most part...
anyway, they qualify as holy too.

[Skeezle @ Dec 20th 2007 8:56AM]

Fesh, MS did this on a much bigger scale back in the late 90's. There were several anti Microsoft sites I'd visit back then that have since all been wiped out. MS would use tactics such as coming down on the hosts of the site, rather than the creator of them in order to get them wiped out quick & fast. I think the case with Think Secret is that they were exposing things that were in the works at Apple, that were secret (hence the name). With the anti MS sites, they were just publishing facts of the past or present tech news stories, ugly facts, that MS would rather people not be aware of. Thought the difference is slight, there is a difference.
The case with Apple & Think Secret, there was an agreement between the two.
In the Anti Microsoft sites, they were just shut down. over & over.
You people that keep insinuating that Apple is the true 'evil empire' while typing away using Windows make me laugh.

[Joey Geraci @ Dec 20th 2007 10:34AM]

The difference is that these were Apple fans adoring the wonder and glory that is Steve Jobs. If this is what Apple does to their fans, one can only imagine the middle eastern hell that Steve sends those that bother to create a high-profile anti-Apple site. It would make the CIA's rendition practices look like friendly conversation and the worst of Microsoft's monopolistic practices look like the United Way.

[Eric @ Dec 20th 2007 10:52AM]

Fesh,

Reality called, it wants you to visit more often.

[JT_X @ Dec 20th 2007 10:57AM]

"the new osx is buggy as hell, even moreso than vista from many accounts"

You're kidding, right?

"and ipods\iphones are under-featured compared to the real entries into those markets"

"Real entries" = non-Apple entries, apparently. Ease of use is the most important feature, anyway.

[Bob S. @ Dec 20th 2007 11:24AM]

Aaaaaactually, JT_X (if that *is* your name...), AppleInsider writes:

"Mac OS X 10.5.2 Update, the next in a year-long series of planned updates to Apple's new Leopard operating system, promises to be one of the most hefty maintenance releases put out by the company for its operating system software in recent years."

I date back to Finder 1.1g and consider Leopard one of the buggiest pieces of software I've ever seen. So while I'm not going to make any comparisons with Vista, which I haven't used, I'm also not going to buy Leopard until a stable release is available at retail. (Much the way I waited until 10.2.5 was available at retail. 10.2.0 was a stinking, steaming turd of a release too.)

(Although if Apple's going to support Leopard for only a year as AppleInsider suggests, it's probably better to skip it entirely.)

As for Think Secret, I'm glad he did well, but it never returned to the quality it had before the suit. Sic transit gloria.

[Arliss Badley @ Dec 20th 2007 1:14AM]

Dude, you're up friggen late! No wonder Forbes sent some lovin.

[paul34 @ Dec 20th 2007 1:14AM]

Maybe he could secretly start working for your tuaw blog.

[Ireland @ Dec 20th 2007 1:16AM]

Apple Insider FTW!! :P

[computer.dude.28 @ Dec 20th 2007 8:16AM]

FTW FTW

[Hax Or @ Dec 20th 2007 9:56AM]

I prefer FFS.

[BigDaddyM @ Dec 20th 2007 1:38AM]

Lets be honest. Think Secret was a website that talked about future products breaking NDAs.

There is a fine line betweeb insider information and journalistic freedom.

I guess the word is that company secrets are protected and I must say I do agree and I am glad that the settlement was acceptable to both.
M

[Gnaget @ Dec 20th 2007 3:21AM]

The problem is, he didn't sign the NDA. It is perfectly legal to report on what people tell you, and the recourse is with the people who signed, and then broke the NDA.

I see two possible cases here:

Either he shut down the site to protect the people who broke the NDA (admirable)

-or-

Apple paid him off to shut down the site (sell-out)

But, we will never know. Of course his response ("I'm very satisfied with the settlement") tells me it is probably the latter, since no one would be happy about shutting down a popular site.

[Russell @ Dec 20th 2007 3:22AM]

Wtf? NDA stands for Non Disclosure AGREEMENT. Key word, agreement. Unless you agree to the agreement you can't break it. This guys sources might have broken NDAs, but unless the goons at Apple suddenly became stupid I can't imagine why they would let an Apple rumor site guy in on any secrets.

[PSM @ Dec 20th 2007 6:54AM]

I'm no lawyer, but here's my take:
Even though he didn't sign the NDA, his sources did. By not revealing his sources, he's sort of aiding them in their illegal activities. Kind of like what other journalists do, except he's not going to jail for it, he just has to shut down his website.

I'm not saying that I'm happy with it, but that's where I think they're coming from.

[Argot @ Dec 20th 2007 8:02AM]

Yeah, fuck freedom of the press and free speech! Let Jobs decide what can and cannot be said!

[clifyt @ Dec 20th 2007 8:47AM]

Reporting on someone else's NDA isn't a problem, neither are trade secrets if you come across them legally. If someone lets you know something, the first amendment allows you to talk about it.

The problem here was that they were specifically asking people to break their contracts in violation of law and making it somewhat valuable to do so...sure it might have only been in getting street cred, but there was an explicit exchange. It is like telling a kid that if he goes into a candy store and steals a bag of gumballs he'd be cool. And then standing outside all day every day telling everyone to do it. Once or twice might be forgiven, but this guy setup a hotline to report these things. People were rewarded for their efforts by Nick (and some not just through 'being cool'). You making it rewarding to break the law and you are going to get smacked down.

This is something even sleazy mainstream media wouldn't dream about doing. Sure, if it was a gov't coverup or something of vital national interest, but this is an eff'n consumer product. Nothing that NEEDS to incite others into breaking the law. If he had gotten people to spill the beans on Apple pouring industrial waste into the sewers of Cupertino -- it would have been for the public good and the leakers could have claimed whistleblower status, but it wasn't.

Lets not pretend this has anything to do with the first amendment -- it has to do with someone inciting someone else to break the law and pretending to stand behind some unconnected legal principle while doing so.

[LC @ Dec 20th 2007 10:25AM]

"But, we will never know. Of course his response ("I'm very satisfied with the settlement") tells me it is probably the latter, since no one would be happy about shutting down a popular site."

Well, to keep a positive spin on this, he could be happy because the settlement insured that all of his sources would remain secret. I know I would be happy that my sources were not betrayed, even if it was no fault of my own, even if it meant losing my popular site. To the jaded person this may not sound likely, but I still have some hope in people.

[CapnVan @ Dec 20th 2007 10:41AM]

@Gnaget, et al: Actually, it generally *is* illegal to print trade secrets.

Clifyt gets it mostly correct, in that, in this case, a large part of the reason for the legal action involved the fact that Ciarelli was actively enticing Apple employees, working under NDA, to supply him with secret information that he could then turn around and post for profit. Think Secret didn't shut down to protect his sources, or because Apple paid him off. Ciarelli almost certainly agreed to a settlement because his lawyer explained that if it went to court, he was going to *lose*.

@clifyt: The First Amendment is not a blanket statement that one can say or print *anything*. If it were, all libel, slander, and "secrets" laws would be unconstitutional. They are not. The First Amendment was never intended as complete protection for *anything*, nor has it ever been construed that way by the courts. In general, your rationale beyond that is correct: broadly speaking, the courts weigh the question of the public good vs. the party's interest in maintaining secrecy.

Had Think Secret revealed that Apple was dumping mercury into San Francisco Bay, that clearly would have been in the public's interest to be made public, despite an employee's NDA. Disclosing a plan to develop an audio breakout box, the drooling of Engadget-reading geeks notwithstanding, does not come under that heading.

[BigDaddyM @ Dec 20th 2007 11:53AM]

I few of you got it right. Our freedoms are limited.

If you assist in breaking the law, you are breaking the law, just to a less punishable degree, but still a crime. Apple is right on this one and anybody would fight to protect its internal secrets.

Being a journalist doesn;t mean you can report on anything.
M

[CharlieX @ Dec 20th 2007 1:40AM]

Oh god in heaven... I just stopped caring about the article when I saw these shitty avatars. Engadget, this is not Gamespot. please get rid of these shitty, space-wasting avatars.

[ethana2 @ Dec 20th 2007 2:17AM]

..away with them.

..and while you're messing with your site...

post edits, please.

[Hax Or @ Dec 20th 2007 9:59AM]

I like the big blue Reply bar that pops up. JK it sucks.

[prateeko @ Dec 20th 2007 1:40AM]

God dammit, the man wins again!

[Jeff @ Dec 20th 2007 1:42AM]

I don't really care, TS had a horrible track record, and anyway let's be honest, there is a difference between rumor-mongering and people breaking NDAs.

[Ireland @ Dec 20th 2007 2:06AM]

Horribly is a gentle way to put it.

[crescentdavid @ Dec 20th 2007 2:22AM]

If TS had such a horrible track record, why did emo boy's "daddy" shut his ass down by paying the man $$$$$$? I mean ... if it were that bad, any sane corporation would have completely disregarded it, saved loads of time and some bucks.

Damn those college kids! Always disrespectin' my beloved outsourcing corporation.

[Alex @ Dec 20th 2007 1:44AM]

There goes 1/3 of the articles submitted to digg.

[Eric Van Boven @ Dec 20th 2007 1:48AM]

All you apple fans say how awesome apple is. Well this story right here shows u the truth.

[Alex @ Dec 20th 2007 2:13AM]

What on earth are you talking about? I am almost sure that most Apple Employees have to sign a contract saying that they won't share future product designs with anybody else. So Apple wanting to find out what employees are leaking this information and breaking contract makes them a bad company? I don't think someone would make your assessment even if Microsoft was the one doing it, its just foolish.

[Reader @ Dec 20th 2007 1:49AM]

I find it pretty noble of the site owner, instead of selling out his sources to keep his site up he agreed to give it up to protect them. Props from me, would be hard to make that decision and many others might take the selfish approach.

[Ireland @ Dec 20th 2007 2:11AM]

Yeah he didn't sell out, he just closed up shop and walked away with a new Apple-filled bank balance O-o

[m @ Dec 20th 2007 1:53AM]

exactly when did this supposedly happen? the site has been close to inactive for a long time already.

[Wes Garner @ Dec 20th 2007 1:54AM]

personally i think that's bs to shutdown think secret! poor guy has prob just been forced to shutdown and play nice

[Tyler Pfaff @ Dec 20th 2007 1:55AM]

sell out

[ethana2 @ Dec 20th 2007 2:15AM]

I wonder if you have post edits yet..
..and yeah, ditch the avatars.
cheeckkkkinggg...

[ethana2 @ Dec 20th 2007 2:16AM]

...FAIL.

[Joel @ Dec 20th 2007 2:30AM]

How much did Apple pay him I wonder...

[Kizorblade @ Dec 20th 2007 2:49AM]

Thinksecret was dying anyway.
It's last post except for the press release was December 14th, then 8th, then November 29th, and then the 14th. The huge jumps in publishing lost a lot of traffic, probably causing him to just sell it.

Avatars - Lose em.

[William Curtis @ Dec 20th 2007 3:25AM]

sell out!!! no true mac man would EVER sell out.

[Tis---strange @ Dec 20th 2007 3:29AM]

oh my.. A fanboydiscussio.
Better not say anything

[matt byrne @ Dec 20th 2007 5:33AM]

Gotta laugh at the iPod being under-featured in their market. If it wasn't for the iPod's success, we probably wouldn't have the market for MP3 players we have today. I don't see many other dedicated MP3 players that have a touch screen, wifi and a web browser, either.

[Rich @ Dec 20th 2007 6:05AM]

How can a *dedicated* MP3 player have a web-browser? :P

[James D @ Dec 20th 2007 7:00AM]

Yeah, Archos knows nothing about touchscreen-enabled PMPs with wifi and a web browser, and clearly the market wasn't headed in that direction before the iPhone, riiiiight...

Why does Apple so often get credit for 'inventing' things like 'mp3 player', or the color white, or wifi-enabled mp3 players? Is it seriously just marketing clout?

[matt byrne @ Dec 20th 2007 7:33AM]

I said the 'market we have today' and 'many other' MP3 players with those features, which are open-ended claims, not definitive statements of fact, sir.

[ssuk @ Dec 20th 2007 7:55AM]

It's not even technically a MP3 player. Most songs are proprietary m4a and mp4 formatted audio files.

[Kai Cherry @ Dec 20th 2007 3:52PM]

ssuck...do you have a dictionary? Do you know what proprietary even...means?!?!

Hre...let me help you: mp3, the file format and codec, are own, licensed and patented by Frauhoffer. You cannot get any more PROPRIETARY than that. It is the definition of what proprietary means.

mp4 is a CONTAINER FILE FORMAT.

More to the point, there is no deference to mp4/m4a on the iPod.

What was the point you were feebly attempting to make, anyway?!

[Billy Kincaid @ Dec 20th 2007 6:51AM]

Sucks eggs, for sure.